6. The 7th Congress of the CI adopted the strategy of the Anti-Fascist People’s Fronts, which, both before and after World War II, claimed government in the framework of capitalism, in the first period as a means of defence against the rise of fascism and in the second as a form of transition to workers’ power.
Before the war, the CPs throught the “Fronts” sought co-operation with social-Democratic political forces, even with bourgeois democratic ones, with the aim of isolating the fascist bourgeois forces and preventing their predominance in every country. At the same time, most of the CPs at that time were focusing on fighting exclusively against the fascist forces, and thus not only did they not turn against the bourgeois powers and the capitalist states that participated in the exploitation of the working class and took part in the war, but they also established in the consciousness of the workers and the people that they were anti-fascist. Moreover, while the war was raging, the CPs sought a post-war cooperation —even governmental one— with these forces. Thus the CPs were unable to link the armed anti-fascist liberation struggle with the struggle for the conquest of workers’ power.
A characteristic example is our country, Greece, which 80 years ago was liberated from the Nazi troops, thanks to the magnificent victories of the Red Army, as well as the irreplaceable contribution of the armed resistance, anti-fascist and liberation movement and their organizations, such as the National Liberation Front (EAM), the Greek People’s Liberation Army (ELAS) and many other armed resistance organizations, formed on the initiative of the KKE. And yet, despite this magnificent mass and armed resistance movement and the fact that during the period of liberation, in October 1944, conditions of a revolutionary situation were formed in Greece, i.e. conditions when the bourgeois power was shaken, with a generalized economic and political crisis, with weakness in the functioning of the repression mechanisms and the institutions of governance that the bourgeoisie had in Greece, the workers’–people’s movement could not win. And this happened because our Party failed to develop the armed liberation and anti-fascist struggle into a socialist revolution in a conscious and planned manner; instead, it was stuck on the line of national unity and the formation of a government of the anti-fascist forces. It thus gave the bourgeoisie (which overcame its old conflicts between the pro-British and pro-German in the face of the fear of losing its power) and its Anglo-American allies the opportunity to launch an all-out political-military offensive against the KKE and the working-class movement in order to consolidate the already shaken bourgeois power. In the context of this attack, the so-called bourgeois democratic forces did not hesitate to use former Nazi collaborators. The heroic, three-year struggle of the Democratic Army of Greece (DSE) could not thwart this planning.
But even in those European countries where the policy of the anti-fascist fronts resulted in the participation of the CPs in the post-war coalition governments, not only did this not constitute the first step towards a transition to workers’ power, but was used to ensure the consensus of the most vanguard workers’–people’s forces until the capitalist power was consolidated. Afterwards, the CPs were driven out of all governments.
7. It is important to see why today all over Europe, and in some cases beyond it, the bourgeois system resorts to such nationalist, racist and fascist “crutches” to get back on its feet. This is undeniable, since the financial support of such forces by parts of the capital, by the forces of its repressive mechanisms, such as the police and the armed forces, and the promotion and presentation of such forces as supposedly “anti-system” by the big bourgeois media, is unfolding before our eyes.
It becomes obvious that such forces are exploited by each bourgeoisie both as the henchmen of the system, and as the spearhead against the workers’–people’s movement. The notion, fostered within the ranks of the international communist movement, that fascism is “exported” by the USA, which is described as a fascist or pro-fascist power, is utterly unfounded and erroneous.
8. Here, too, we should note that the KKE, studying the History of the Comintern, assessed that the division of the states of the international imperialist system into “fascist”/“pro-war” and “democratic”/ “pro-peace” which prevailed in the ranks of the Comintern before the Second World War was wrong and damaging. Today, certain forces in the ranks of the international communist movement are reverting to this false division, which obscures both the class nature of the bourgeois regimes and the cause of the emergence and strengthening of the fascist current, which lies in monopoly capitalism itself and in the service of capitalist interests in each country. The KKE has drawn lessons from history and does not agree with this approach of dividing the imperialist forces into “bad” (“fascist”, “neo-fascist”) and “good” ones, nor, of course, with calls to form “anti-fascist fronts” in a non-class direction, i.e. alliances without socio-class criteria but with all “progressive and honest people”, as some call upon us. Such approaches and calls lead the communist movement and the working class to their disarmament, to the renunciation of their historical mission and to the formulation of a line of supposed purification of imperialism by the “fascist forces”. At the same time, it offers an alibi to the so-called democratic and pro-peace bourgeois forces.
9. To justify the above distorted approach, a speculation is rife over the definition of fascism given by G. Dimitrov at the 7th Comintern Congress as “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital”. We believe that the 7th Congress drew an absolute distinction between the “power” of finance capital from the interests of industrial capital. Similarly, it drew an absolute distinction between fascist and democratic capitalist states. As a consequence of this distinction, the alliance of the workers’ and communist movement with part of the bourgeois powers and states was elevated into an ideology, and class preparedness against the opposing class was weakened, as we saw earlier.
Today, some who refer to that definition of fascism selectively ignore the fact that the Communist International, before that definition of fascism, had given another definition in its Programme (1928), in which, among other things, it noted that “Under certain special historical conditions, the progress of this bourgeois, imperialist, reactionary offensive assumes the form of fascism”, while the features of fascism were presented in detail in the Resolution on the International Situation at the 6th Congress of the Communist International (1928). It is also ignored that Dimitrov's well-known definition in 1935 was given under other historical circumstances, when the imperialist powers were planning the dissolution of the only socialist state in the world, while the USSR, for its part, was trying to cause a rift among the imperialist powers and take advantage of their contradictions. This definition is therefore used detached from the historical conditions that gave rise to it and is mechanistically and unscientifically transferred to the present conditions, where the USSR does not exist and the situation that has developed in China is in no way consistent with the principles of socialism. We are talking about a capitalist superpower competing with the USA for supremacy in the international imperialist system.
10. Both in the past and today the way for the emergence and development of fascist forms is paved not only by the right-wing forces, but also by the forces of social democracy, which support the unhistorical theory of the “two extremes”, the unacceptable identification of communism with fascism. In this way they seek not only to exonerate capitalism for the crimes of fascism-Nazism, but also to attribute them to the communist movement, the only force that has consistently fought against with self-sacrifice.
Moreover, the disillusionment of people’s forces having a low political criterion with the promises of the right-wing and social-democratic parties in government, under conditions of lack of strong CPs and great workers’ struggles, propels the political recovery of nationalist, racist and even fascist forces. This becomes particularly pronounced in conditions of extensive destruction of the lower and middle strata in the phase of capitalist crisis, increasing poverty, unemployment and the wear and tear of the bourgeois parliamentary parties. It is then that the bourgeoisie makes multiple use of the Nazi parties as outposts to serve its interests. It exploits the actions of the Nazis who, with extreme nationalism and alleged “solidarity”, cast their net to co-opt people’s forces, the unemployed, the ruined petty bourgeois strata.
11. Today, the way to fascist forces and their white-washing is also opened by those opportunist “communist” forces which, in the name of “restoring the sovereignty of the country” that is threatened by the EU, as is the case in Italy, or “repelling the exported fascism of the USA”, as is the case in Russia, talk or collaborate with forces prone to fascism.